Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[Brightmoon]

Good example. Show me their eyes come back when removed from dark. I guess this could be tested in the lab.

They have functioning make-an-eye genes but they are turned off

 

[Brightmoon]

Dawkins is an evolutionist hack. In his demonstration of the poor design of the giraffe's RLN he 'hacked' right through the evidence of ID that has been observed by others, including "Gray's Anatomy", which states this about that:


"Indeed, hints of important functions for the RLN nerve can be seen in the old authority, Gray's Anatomy, which states regarding the normal human design:

As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.

So it seems that the RLN is innervating a lot more than just the larynx.

Pro-ID biologist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, in his article "The Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe: Does it Prove Evolution?," quotes a passage from a much more recent 1980 edition of Gray's Anatomy stating much the same thing:

As the recurrent laryngeal nerve curves around the subclavian artery or the arch of aorta, it gives several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the oesophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea and some filaments to the inferior constrictor [Constrictor pharyngis inferior]. "

(Gray's Anatomy, 1980, p. 1081, similarly also in the 40th edition of 2008, pp. 459, 588/589)

The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design

Rather than being poor design it seems rather elegant to me.

You do realize that the cardiac plexus is near the base of the heart so curving around either the aorta or the subclavian isnt great design . It’s a Rube Goldberg construction based on where arteries were during fetal development and these arteries evolved from the gill arches

 

[Silmarien]

you never heard of Ken Miller ?!?!?! At the Dover trial, he basically shot Micheal Behe out of the water! He wrote Finding Darwin’s God about why some scientists are theists and accept evolution and the old earth

Eh, I only know about Michael Behe because of this site. I don't follow the Intelligent Design controversy too closely.

 

[USincognito]

If you exercise common sense and logic, you will find, something, anything from nothing has never been demonstrated, never has, never will. Nothing, (pre-big bang theory) cannot produce matter.
All the theories and hypothesis in the world will never change that fact.

Renders it impossible,

Since evolution only takes place in extant life on an extant planet (earth in this case) nothing in the first quote has anything to do with evolution, much less rendering it impossible.

promoted by deluded charlatans.

The irony of someone who clearly understands nothing about evolution calling science advocates deluded charlatans is not lost on any of us.

 

[EJ M]

(Also, something from nothing isn't a part of the Big Bang Theory).

This from stardate.org ;
Scientists pretty much agree that our universe — everything that we can see and touch — evolved from a single moment of creation, known as the Big Bang. It happened 13.8 billion years ago, and it created not just matter and energy, but space and time as well.

But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang. Some say that there was nothing at all. It’s an idea supported by Stephen Hawking, who has said that the universe wasn’t created, it just is.

Impossible, ridiculous and untrue.
It's much easier to believe in intelligent design, and I LOVE the Intelligent Designer.
He is my Redeemer and my King!

 

[EJ M]

Since evolution only takes place in extant life on an extant planet (earth in this case) nothing in the first quote has anything to do with evolution, much less rendering it impossible.



The irony of someone who clearly understands nothing about evolution calling science advocates deluded charlatans is not lost on any of us.

Lets revisit this in 100 years.
By then, there will be no doubt who is a deluded charlatan.

 

[USincognito]

So........ better give it up and become a believer That's what the TOE claims started it all. ( Big bang, presto, something from nothing)

You keep being corrected that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory and that there's no proposal in the Big Bang Theory for "something from nothing". Why do you so obstinately insist on repeating falsehoods after you have been admonished?

One can try to divorce the TOE from the origins of the universe, but the 2 are intricately tied together. Without the first, the second falls.

This is, to be quite frank, an asinine assertion. Evolution only takes place when there is extant life on an extant earth. How that life and that earth came to be had zero effect on evolution.

Let's not forget, the TOE is only a theory, never been observed or demonstrated.

Evolution has been observed for the last 150 years. You also need to learn what a scientific theory is.

And Noah's flood was just "discovered" by several high powered "scientists", ( they got the timeline wrong, it was about 4,000 years ago, not 1-2 hundred thousand)
And one of the latest studies came up with the following;

All humans may be descended from just TWO people and a catastrophic event almost wiped out ALL species 100,000 years ago, study suggests

• Genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals from different species were surveyed
• Research prompted speculation humans and animals sprang from single pair.

Everything in this is wrong and that's not surprising since you copy and pasted it from The Daily Fail.

The bar code analysis was on a single gene and suggests that most modern animal species have evolved in the last 200,000 years. Those species would have been from populations that existed before them. Again, populations, not individuals.

Also.
No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago

 

[Shemjaza]

This from stardate.org ;
Scientists pretty much agree that our universe — everything that we can see and touch — evolved from a single moment of creation, known as the Big Bang. It happened 13.8 billion years ago, and it created not just matter and energy, but space and time as well.

But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang. Some say that there was nothing at all. It’s an idea supported by Stephen Hawking, who has said that the universe wasn’t created, it just is.

Impossible, ridiculous and untrue.
It's much easier to believe in intelligent design, and I LOVE the Intelligent Designer.
He is my Redeemer and my King!

You source is a popular science page, not a scholarly publication. But I notice the important text of "But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang." showing that the Big Bang theory does not in fact address where the initial conditions came from.

I understand that you find it easier to believe in an Intelligent Designer... but you'll need evidence to convince anyone else.

Can you actually present evidence that the Big Bang theory is in fact "impossible, ridiculous and untrue"?

 

[USincognito]

Lets revisit this in 100 years.
By then, there will be no doubt who is a deluded charlatan.

Why? The data are in now and it's clear that evolution has happened. There are literally millions of potential observations we could have made that would falsify evolution, but we have made none of them. What makes you think that something will happen in the next 100 years that will change the pattern we've been observing for the last 150 years?

Or are you just trying to avoid discussing the evidence we have now?

 

[EJ M]

You source is a popular science page, not a scholarly publication. But I notice the important text of "But there’s absolutely no agreement about what came before the Big Bang." showing that the Big Bang theory does not in fact address where the initial conditions came from.

I understand that you find it easier to believe in an Intelligent Designer... but you'll need evidence to convince anyone else.

Can you actually present evidence that the Big Bang theory is in fact "impossible, ridiculous and untrue"?

Yep, something from nothing is an impossibility that cannot be demonstrated or observed.
And I remain firmly convinced, as to the intelligence of..................... (Psalms 14:1)

 

[Tinker Grey]

.............. (Psalms 14:1)

When all else fails, name call.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, you only need one of those "human" abilities? But if it's based on the individual, you still have the problem of some very young, sick or injured not counting as being part of the same species.

There's also the problem of this somewhat ad hoc method might work okay for a single species we actually belong to, but the scientific definition actually scales to the other life of the planet. You can't just have two species: "humans" and "not humans", well, I guess you could, but it wouldn't be very useful most of the time.

I am not trying to give a rigorous definition to "human", and my goal is only to tell "human" from non-human, which I collectively call it "animal". This line of argument can easily defeat the shameless claim made by many evolutionists that human is only another animal. Indeed, only judged by genetics and morphology, it could be a very reasonable claim. And that is the most serious problem to me about evolution.

And the caviar is: The Bible has answered the hardest part of this unanswered scientific problem right in the Genesis 2. Like it or not, this is simply miraculous.

 

[USincognito]

Yep, something from nothing {snip}

You have been corrected repeatedly on this. Why do you keep repeating it?

 

[Brightmoon]

Eh, I only know about Michael Behe because of this site. I don't follow the Intelligent Design controversy too closely.

. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinated

 

[Brightmoon]

. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinated

. They still are at ncse- National Center for Science Education. That’s a screenshot not a link

 

[Tinker Grey]

. The Dover trial transcripts were online ... fascinating reading . I’m not sure if they still are . If you can find them you’ll be fascinated

Here's the link: Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts

 

[Brightmoon]

Thanks

 

[EJ M]

Why? The data are in now and it's clear that evolution has happened. There are literally millions of potential observations we could have made that would falsify evolution, but we have made none of them. What makes you think that something will happen in the next 100 years that will change the pattern we've been observing for the last 150 years?

Or are you just trying to avoid discussing the evidence we have now?

What has been used as proof of the TOE is every creature's ability to adapt to it's environment.

You have been corrected repeatedly on this. Why do you keep repeating it?

Repetition is a good teacher?

 

[EJ M]

When all else fails, name call.

I believe in context it's not a name, only a description

 

[Shemjaza]

Yep, something from nothing is an impossibility that cannot be demonstrated or observed.
And I remain firmly convinced, as to the intelligence of..................... (Psalms 14:1)

I agree, it has never been demonstrated or observed.

It is also a lie to say that the Big Bang theory states that it is possible.

Personally I've never seen evidence that nothing can actually exist. Everything in the universe seems to come from other things... how space, matter and time can actually start is a total mystery.

I've actually never been presented with evidence that "nothing" is even possible or ever existed.